Talk:Zugzwang/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Error in trebuchet example 3.6.5 diagram?

The example diagram from the Bourzutschky computer analysis example currently shows four white knights. If that is for teaching purposes, please indicate in text? Otherwise, diagram needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.11.49 (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It is correct, look here and scroll down to # 282. It is possible to have four (or more) knights because of underpromotion. As the section title says, it is an endgame study. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Article is overwhelmed by examples.

There are far too many examples on the page, with very little content except just a move list and image of the board. We should limit these examples to one or two for each category. I'm not really sure which ones should stay and which should go. Does anyone have any preferences or opinions on this? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

While I understand the desire to be gender inclusive, using "they" to refer to one person is not only grammatically incorrect but also inaccurate. Many of the mentioned games involved a specific male player vs. another specific male player, and thus "he" is far better than "they." Additionally, saying that "both sides" want to do something, when really each side wants to do something different is inaccurate and incorrect. One instance had to be left as it was part of a quotation from some famous commentator. Some purely stylistic changes have been made.190.81.202.250 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

term outside of chess

I'm not a linguist but a german. As I know the term, it does not imply that you loose, only that you have to do something. As in "This persons actions forced me to act". The term might have changed in meaning within chess, but one should make sure that they also apply outside of it. The german wikipedia entry agrees with me concerning common language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.240.224 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The general definition is that a player has to move but has no option but to weaken their own position, having nothing better. In the second paragraph it explains the consequences of zugzwang in chess, highlighting how bad it is. Zugzwang isnt just the forced nature of having the move, it is in addition that there is no good move to make. Jkmaskell (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

removal of examples

I disagree with taking out the examples. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with removing all the examples too... that's not what I'm suggesting. However, the MOS indicates fairly clearly that we should avoid excessive lists of examples such as what we had. We can provide further reading to link to them, and we can provide notes for additional detail on the examples we do have, but keep in mind that our purpose is to explain the concept of zugzwang, not to list every time it's happened in a game.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, we still have 20 examples listed in the article, as well as 2 books listed in further reading.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)